The Eulogy Begins

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

More than ONE? Where do you get this stuff from?

From living in CA. Obviously you don't.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Bro, please stop with your attacks.

I have every right to post my opinions.

I do not understand your anger toward me.

I assure you it is misplaced.

Brother Jones,

I would appreciate an apology.

Otherwise I will report your post to admin. Please debate the issue, and not my character - or lack of character.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Brother Jones, I am sorry you are so upset, however I truly believe what I posted.

For instance, as resolution three was being debated, an elder (don't know his name) stood in opposition to an amendment that would have totally erased the "under question" language from the bylaws.

He stated that we needed to be able to control who was in our pulpits (the organization), and that he was worried about our purity.

This was said while we debated res #3. A resolution that would prohibit someone who has been divorced, suffered financial difficulty, or any other "questionable" issues, from preaching in my church.

The entire idea was CONTROL.

There is a very small minority who want control.

They will not control the pulpit of the church I pastor.

Phil, if I wanted you to preach in my church, and you agreed to come, they would have the right to call me before the board now.

I find that despicable.

They already had that right!!

Res 3 did not change the policy of putting people under question and forbiding UPC preacher....!!!

4 years ago they put ME out under question, 3 months later I had a UPC preacher scheduled to preach for me from Arkansas....he decided to keep the scheduled service.....his Dist Super called him and told him that my former Dist was pressing charges because they saw him announced on my church's website....and they monitor my website to make sure I don't announce UPC preachers....

BECAUSE THEY PUT ME OUT UNDER QUESTION!

THis has been the policy for decades...all res 3 did was define "under question" and "conduct unbecoming a minister"....other thsan those definitions, resolution 3 changed nothing else!!!

[Nahum]

Brother Jones,

I have recieved so many personal threats for voicing simple opinions (that now the majority of men in the org have embraced).
Don't tell me there aren't men who are spiteful and devoid of any sense of tolerance and brotherhood.

I have experienced it firsthand Sir.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

They already had that right!!

Res 3 did not change the policy of putting people under question and forbiding UPC preacher....!!!

4 years ago they put ME out under question, 3 months later I had a UPC preacher scheduled to preach for me from Arkansas....he decided to keep the scheduled service.....his Dist Super called him and told him that my former Dist was pressing charges because they saw him announced on my church's website....and they monitor my website to make sure I don't announce UPC preachers....

BECAUSE THEY PUT ME OUT UNDER QUESTION!

THis has been the policy for decades...all res 3 did was define "under question" and "conduct unbecoming a minister"....other thsan those definitions, resolution 3 changed nothing else!!!

We've discussed this before ... your situation not withstanding .... and that of others ... this resolution defined the parameters to give districts broader oowers ....

it streamlined a process for every district ... defined under question ... and allows the entire board of every district to be arbiters in these situations .... allowing for factionalism, IMO

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

We've discussed this before ... your situation not withstanding .... and that of others ... this resolution defined the parameters to give districts broader oowers ....

it streamlined a process for every district ... defined under question ... and allows the entire board of every district to be arbiters in these situations .... allowing for factionalism, IMO

But they were already doing it....these act as though it is a new thing that a preacher can't preach for them who is under question....like this resolution gives some sort of new pulpit control..

When it comes to District boards putting a guy out "under question or conduct unbecoming"...and then policing the pulpit of the local church...nothing new happens now!

They have been the arbiters in these situations for decades...only without a clear definition of what the terms listed in the manual actually mean...but those terms and this authority to refuse certain preachers from preaching at certain churches...is still the same.

[rgcraig]

Huge loss of FOCUS seems to be running rampant!!!

Let me say that there is no anger in any of my posts. I apologize for MY opinions being viewed as hurtful while I cannot view your opinons the same way. It seems to me that the conservative side is being painted as intolerant and attacking while the libs are being painted as the epitome of tolerance and openness to other views. My friend, that JUST AIN"T TRUE!!!!

I am simply pointing out that there is no proof whatsoever that any of what you or Daniel have said would happen on a large scale. It is PURELY speculation... you call it opinion... and I agree it is opinion based on speculation not fact.

I too am very concerned over the fact that Resolution 3 has such potential for abuse... but that article has always had that potential. It now just has a clearer definition to be used as the foundation of that abuse. If it hasn't been used in that manner up to now... it probably won't be going forward.

There are districts that have already used it abusively in the past. I have cited a FACTUAL example of one district in several different posts since its passage.

I just don't like to see either side make these kind of statements or employ innuendo in the discussion of the issues. It is counterproductive to the goal of you and Dan A and me... that is unity. You guys are stirring up just as much strife as those from the other side.

I just weep that we cannot look at a post like the one that started this thread and empathize... we don't have to agree... but we should be able to feel for the pain of this person. We certainly shouldn't make light of them or mock them or do anything to belittle them.

I don't have all the answers but I know that what has gone on in this thread, including my comments for which I again apologize, is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Brother Jones,

I would appreciate an apology.

Otherwise I will report your post to admin. Please debate the issue, and not my character - or lack of character.

PP,

I have already posted an apology.. I do not see where I attacked your character or or indicated a lack thereof. Obviously I did say some things that were untoward and I apologize for that.

Now, in the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

I think the reason people can't see eye to eye here is the liberals feel like they have straightened a picture on the wall, while the conservatives feel like someone just demolished a whole wall... it is hard for either side to comprehend the other.